Skip to main content

LIC pulled up, asked to pay Rs. 1.06 lakh for harassing claimant

Life Insurance Corporation has been pulled up by a consumer forum here for "knowingly harassing" the widow of a policy holder by denying her claim and directed to pay her Rs. 1.06 lakh.

The New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum noted that as per the conditions of the policy issued to the complainant's husband no medical report was required, but LIC had denied the claim on the ground that he had not disclosed that he had been suffering from TB for over four years.

"We have gone through the contents of complaint and noticed that non-medical policy for sum assured of Rs. 50,000 was issued to the complainant by opposite party (LIC) over which there is no medical report is required as per norms of LIC policy.

"Despite the above facts, opposite party deliberately/arbitrarily denied the claim without supporting evidence which is a clear case of deficiency/unfair trade practice that opposite party knowingly harassed consumers without any reason except to suck the blood just like a blood hounder as if money goes from LIC officials' pocket," a bench presided by CK Chaturvedi said.

The forum directed LIC to pay Delhi resident Hasmukhi Devi the assured amount of Rs. 50,000 under the policy along with Rs. 35,000 as compensation and Rs. 21,000 as cost of litigation.

According to Devi, her husband Ram Avtar, who was insured under a LIC policy since December 12, 2003 for a sum of Rs. 50,000 had died on April 11, 2005, during the period of the insurance cover.

She had filed the claim for assured amount after that and the same was rejected by LIC.

LIC had rejected the claim on the ground that her husband had been suffering from TB for over four years and had not disclosed the same while availing the policy.

Article referred: http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/LIC-pulled-up-asked-to-pay-Rs-1-06-lakh-for-harassing-claimant/Article1-1095981.aspx

Comments

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.